It depends on how you use that space... and how quickly you fill it.

Sure your ISP may not be happy if over the course of a few days you upload a few hundred gigs to any provider like this... but after that's done, the bandwidth bill stays low as there isn't usually much churn.

In the case that the amount of data to be uploaded is even larger... some cloud providers have the option to simply mail hard drives directly to the datacenter to import the data directly.

Do you think data you upload to a cloud storage provider lives on just one hard disk that is plugged into the wall and that's it?

While some data centers do rely on more consumer level hardware (vs enterprise)... to help make up for the inherent unreliability of consumer level drives, they will replicate the data across multiple HDDs, in multiple racks, and possibly across multiple datacenters... as well as monitor the underlying bits for bitrot and overall integrity... in addition to sometimes offering backup options of what has been stored.

And this aside from offering you 24/7 access to the data from anywhere in the world while keeping that HDD and the attached server running (and power consuming) and with a redundant power system available.

All of these things quickly add up in terms of cost... so yes, two cents/GB is quite inexpensive for cloud storage these days when compared to like offerings.

If you are not a member of one of various elites, you have no expectation of privacy, protection under the law, or economic security.

I feel quite dirty even thinking about defending Senator Feinstein... but she has a point... though I don't know if she's making it as she could.

In the US we are taught that we have three co-equal branches (it's really two with a lessor third, but I digress)... so one branch secretly spying on/impeding a second... is not quite kosher... at least with the FBI raid on the congressional offices of William "Cold Cash" Jefferson... a claim could at least be made that it was two branches acting together to target a member of the third and through normal legal practices ( ie checks and balances)... even that was attacked by virtually all in congress.

if you want to see tyranny, nothing beats homeowners' associations.

You went in knowing you'd be part of an HOA (unless you were rather ignorant and didn't read through the covenants of the property you moved to/purchased (alas, I cannot erect an oil derrick on my property which was the major takeaway of reading through all of the paperwork when closing on my house (an no HOA!!! (which I already knew))... in the end you agreed to live under that tyranny... I on the other hand did not vote for a single person who voted for and ultimately forced Obamacare down the thought of the American people... so I'd argue that my tyranny beats your tyranny.

That assumes you put much trust in Google vs your ISP... I do not trust either.

These sorts of announcements have the effect of freezing developers and keeping them from moving to superior technology.

Which developers are you talking about? I'd wager that the biggest money makers and users of these APIs (AAA game developers) already have good enough relationships with Microsoft, Sony, etc where under NDA they are able to offer feedback on existing and proposed API/platform directions and allow themselves to be in sync with where it is going.

Politicians get voted out of office **all the time** in America.

People loose races yes... but on average an incumbent is far more likely to hold onto their seat then lose it to a non-incumbent.

Governments have more accountability than private companies in a democracy...no matter what the economic system.

For the most part I can (and do) choose which companies I do business with... I don't have the same degree of choice when it comes to government.

It's scary and black.

Racist!

I guess this means that my wife's pink AR-15 variant with Hello Kitty stickers isn't an assault weapon... wheew!

... and journalists don't seem to recall much history.

Back in the days of the DeCSS controversy, 2600 magazine was one who proudly hosted the code on their site... only to get slapped down by the DVD CCA who accused them of distributing the code in question.

Eventually 2600 relented and stopped hosting the code... but instead had links to places it could be obtained.

The DVD CCA was not impressed... and won again, arguing that such linking was also a form of wilful distribution of the code.

Because if she succeeds is suppressing the film, she gets to keep her head.

That's a rather silly idea... as it assumes that no one who would desire to kill her would have any other means of finding the movie... or for that matter hasn't seen it already.

If anything, this suit has made her more of a target as all of the sudden more personal information is available.

Would you say that a minor has common authority?

As mentioned above, in People v. Hoxter, People v. Santiago & Allen v. State of Alabama, courts have allowed searches that were consented to by minors.

Your cited definition is lacking, and actually highlights it by the some of the associated topics: "bona fide occupant, illegal occupancy, lawful occupant".

Merriam-Webster has a better one:

: a person who is using or living in a particular building, apartment, or room

: a person who is in a room, vehicle, etc., at a particular time

Ownership and even tenancy involve a higher level of formalization which would rise to the level of 'resident'... simple occupancy does not.

You do note a key differentiator... occasional vs regular occupancy.

While a visitor would be considered an occupant and not a resident (residency requiring either a pre-existing time spent, or a clear plan to (lease))... at what point does occupancy become residency (assuming we accept the premise that residency is required to be able to consent)?

You invite a girl back to your house for a night... she's an occupant.

She eventually moves in with you... she's a resident.

At what point in between did that status change and she inherited the legal authority to consent to a search of the resident?

You do not support this statement with law, case or otherwise.

Always fun when someone requests what they themselves didn't provide.

As I said earlier:

In this case, the person who had previously consent was not present (thanks to being arrested), the remaining occupant then gave permission.

Clearly you didn't RTFA... as this case is about just that.

One occupant refused consent, was later arrested and the remaining occupant provided consent... which in turn allowed the police to search the property.

Please support this with case law showing a person moved to throw out evidence obtained under those circumstances and the motion was denied.

Why not ask for a purple & green elephant that is wearing a tutu, eating a ice cream cone while singing the star spangled banner?

When you attempt to frame your request in such a way, you aren't likely to get many hits... and it is rather deceptive to attempt that when trying to have a discussion.

What I described above was a series of circumstances beyond your own based on a little thinking and understanding of the law (note how you still haven't cited anything contrary to anything I've said?).

In People v. Hoxter, People v. Santiago & Allen v. State of Alabama and plenty more, the courts have upheld the idea of a minor being able to grant permission (often depending on circumstances).

United States v Rith is also a good read as it applies to adult children, even discussing some circumstances where a third-party consent may not be valid, rent paying (Chapman v. United States), lock on door (United States v. Kinney), or explicit agreement... which was mentioned as a possibility (rather than as a specific citation of such a case), so given United States v. Morning and others, it is not to much to believe that even a paper agreement may not invalidate the results of a third-party consented search.

Sorry for having to do your job and thinking for you.

Then you best be on premise (or have someone else there) to refuse consent to when the police visit.

No, exactly.

In Georgia v. Randolph SCOTUS held that when there was one occupant present who did not give consent, that did not allow the police to conduct a search despite the consent from another resident.

In this case, the person who had previously consent was not present (thanks to being arrested), the remaining occupant then gave permission.

Even in the case where the police had previously been denied consent, they still were able to conduct their search because there was no one present to deny.

Unless you've got a signed agreement with the housekeeper and/or baby sitter (not to mention other non-owning occupants of the home) that explicitly states that they do not have permission to give consent... the best you'd be able to do is sue them for breach of contract after the fact... because when your 14 year old daughter who thinks you are ruining their life, the wife who is angry at you for forgetting your anniversary, or the housekeeper who is also steeling the silver gives consent... your non-objection at the time of request will allow the police in.